(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "On management and the learning process"

\ -\ 



mnmimmm§ 



.i,ii. mil. 



ALFRED P. SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAG 



On Management and the Learning Process 

David A. Kolb 
March 1973 652-73 



APR 111973 



J-ISRAmES^ 



MASSACHUSETTS 

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

50 MEMORIAL DRIVE 

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 



i 

APR 28 19731 



On Management and the Learning Process 

David A. Kolb 
March 1973 652-73 



Not to be quoted or reproduced prior to publication. 



VI 



,vfo5Z-/^ 



Today's highly successful manager or administrator is distinguished 
not so much by any single set of knowledge or skills but by his ability to 
adapt to and master the changing demands of his job and career, that is, 
by his ability to learn . The same is true for successful organizations. 
Continuing success in a changing world requires an ability to explore new 
opportunities and learn from past successes and failures. So stated these 
ideas are neither new nor particularly controversial. Yet it is surprising 
that this ability to learn, which is so widely regarded as important, re- 
ceives so little explicit attention by managers and their organizations. 
There is a kind of fatalism about learning. One either learns or he doesn't, 
The ability to consciously control and manage the learning process is 
usually limited to such school boy maxims as "Study hard" and "Do your 
homework". 

Part of the reason for this fatalism lies, 1 believe, in a lack of 
understanding about the learning process itself. If managers and admin- 
istrators had a model about how individuals and organizations learn they 
would better be able to enhance their own and their organization's ability 
to learn. This essay describes such a model and attempts to show some 
of the ways in which the learning process and individual learning styles 
affect management education, managerial decision-making and problem solv- 
ing, and organizational learning. 
The Experiential Learning Model 

Let us begin with a model of how people learn — a model which I call 
the experiential learning model. The model is labelled experiential for 
two reasons. The first is historical, tieing it to its intellectual ori- 
gins in the social psychology of Kurt Lewin in the 40 's and the sensitivity 



RECEIVED 
APR 11 1973 

M. I. T LIBRARIES 



- 2 - 



training and laboratory education work of the 50 's and 60' s. The second 
reason is to emphasize the important role that experience plays in the 
learning process, an emphasis that differentiates this approach from other 
cognitive theories of the learning process. The core of the model is a 
simple description of the learning cycle, of how experience is translated 
into concepts which in turn are used a guides in the choice of new experi- 
ences (see Figure 1) 

Figure 1 
The Experiential Learning Model 



CONCRETE 
EXPERIENCE 



TESTING IMPLICATIONS 
OF CONCEPTS IN NEW 
SITUATIONS 



OBSERVATIONS AND 
REFLECTIONS 



FORMATION OF ABSTRACT 
CONCEPTS AND GENERALIZATIONS 



Learning is conceived of as a four stage cycle. Immediate concrete 
experience is the basis for observation and reflection. These observations 
are assimilated into a "theory" from which new implications for action can 
be deduced. These implications or hypotheses then serve as guides in acting 
to create new experiences. The learner, if he is to be effective, needs 
four different kinds of abilities — Concrete Experience abilities (CE) , 



t^^y-jrtrZ'T- 



Reflective Observation abilities (FO) , Abstract Conceptualization abilities 
(AC) and Active Experimentation (AE) abilities. That is, he must be able 
to involve himself fully, openly, and without bias in new experiences (CE) , 
he must be able to reflect on and observe these experiences from many per- 
spectives (RO) ; he must be able to create concepts that integrate his ob- 
servations into logically sound theories (AC) and he must be able to use 
these theories to make decisions and solve problems (AE) . Yet how difficult 
this ideal is to achieve! Can anyone become highly skilled in all of 
these abilities or are they necessarily in conflict? How can one act and 
reflect at the same time? How can one be concrete and immediate and still 
be theoretical? Indeed a closer examination of the four-stage learning model 
reveals that learning requires abilities that are polar opposites and that 
the learner, as a result, must continually choose which set of learning 
abilities he will bring to bear in any specific learning situation. More 
specifically, there are two primary dimensions to the learning process. 
The first dimension represents the concrete experiencing of events at one 
end and abstract conceptualization at the other. The other dimension has 
active experimentation at one extreme and reflective observation at the 
other dimension has active experimentation at one extreme and reflective 
observation at the other. Thus, in the process of learning one moves in 
varying degrees from actor to observer, from specific involvement tu gen- 
eral analytic detachment. 

Most cognitive psychologists (e.g., Flavell , 1963; Bruner, 1960, 1966; 
Harvey, Hunt & Shroeder, 1961) see the concrete/abstract dimension as a 
primary dimension on which cognitive growth and learning occurs. Goldstein 
and Scheerer suggest that greater abstractness results in the development 



- 4 - 



of the following abilities: 

1. To detach our ego from the outer world or from inner experience 

2. To assume a mental set 

3. To account for acts to oneself; to berbalize the account 

4. To shift reflectively from one aspect of the situation to another 

5. To hold in mind simultaneously various aspects 

6. To grasp the essential of a given whole: to break up a given into 
parts to isolate and to synthesize them 

7. To abstract common properties reflectively; to form hierarchic 
concepts 

8. To plan ahead ideationally , to assume an attitude toward the more 
possible and to think or perform symbolically (1941, p. 4) 

Concreteness , on the other hand, represents the absence of these abilities 
the immersion in and domination by one's immediate experiences. Yet as 
the circular model of the learning process would imply, abstractness is not 
exclusively good and concreteness exclusively bad. To be creative requires 
that one be able to experience anew, freed somewhat from the constraints 
of previous abstract concepts. In psychoanalytic theoirv' this need for a 
concrete childlike perspective in the creative process is referred to 
regression in service of the ego (Kris, 1952). Bruner (1966) in his essay 
on the conditions for creativity further emphasises the dialectic tension 
between abstract detachment and concrete involvement. For him the creative 
act is a product of detachment and commitment, of passion and decorum, and 
of a freedom to be dominated by the object of one's inquiry. 

The active/reflective dimension is the other major dimension of cogni- 
tive growth and learning. As growth occurs, thought becomes more reflective 
and internalized, based more on the manipulation of symbols and images 
than overt actions. The modes of active experimentation and reflection, 
like abstractness/concreteness , stand in opposition to one another. Re- 
flection tends to inhibit action and visa-versa . For example. Singer (1968) 
has found that children who have active internal fantasy lives are more 



- 5 - 

capable of inhibiting action for long periods of time than are children 
with little internal fantasy life. Kagan (1964) has found on the other hand 
that very active orientations toward learning situations inhibit reflection 
and thereby preclude the development of analytic concepts. Herein lies the 
second major dialectic in the learning process — the tension between actively 
testing the implications of one's hypotheses and reflectively interpreting 
data already collected. 
Individual Learning Styles 

As a result of our hereditary equipment, our particular past life ex- 
perience, and the demands of our present environment most people develop 
learning styles that emphasize some learning abilities over others. We 
come to resolve the conflicts between being active and reflective and between 
being inmediate and analytical in characteristic ways. Some people develop 
minds that excell at assimilating disparate facts into coherent theories, 
yet these same people are incapable or uninterested in deducing hypotheses 
from their theory. Others are logical geniuses but find it impossible to 
involve and surrender themselves to an experience. And so on. A mathe- 
matician may come to place great emphasis on abstract concepts while a poet 
may value concrete experience more highly. A manager may be primarily 
concerned with the active application of ideas while a naturalist may de- 
velop his observational skills highly. Each of us in a unique way develops 
a learning style that has some weak and strong points. 

For some time now I have been involved in a program of research studies 
aimed at identifying different kinds of learning styles and their conse- 
quences. The purpose of this research is to better understand the differ- 
ent ways that people learn and solve problems so that we can both make 



- 6 - 



individuals aware of the consequences of their own learning style and of 
the alternative learning modes available to them, and improve the design 
of learning experiences to take these learning style differences into 
account. In this work we have developed a simple self -description inven- 
tory, the Learning Style Inventory (LSI), that is designed to measure an 
individual's strengths and weaknesses as a learner. The LSI measures an 
individual's relative emphasis on the four learning abilities described 
earlier. Concrete Experience (CE) , Reflective Observation (RO) , Abstract 
Conceptualization (AC) and Active Experimentation (AE) by asking him, 
several different times, to rank order four words that describe these dif- 
ferent abilities. For example, one set of four words is "Feeling" (CE) , 
"Watching" (RO) , "Thinking" (AC) , "Doing" (AE) . The inventory yields six 
scores, CE, RO, AC and AE plus two combination scores that indicate the 
extent to which the individual emphasizes abstractness over concreteness 

(AC-CE) and the extent to which an individual emphasizes active experi- 

/ 
mentation over ref lection(AE-RO) . 

The LSI was administered to 800 practicing managers and graduate 

students in management to obtain norm for the management population. In 

general these managers tended to emphasize Active Experimentation over 

Reflective Observation. In addition, managers with graduate degrees 

tended to rate their abstract (AC) learning skills higher. ^^Thile the 

managers we tested showed many different patterns of scores on the LSI, 

we have identified four dominant types of learning styles that occur most 



1. The details of the inventory construction are described in Kolb (1971). 
The inventory itself along with management norms appears in Kolb, Rubin and 
Mclntyre, Organizational Psychology An Experiential Approach , Prentice-Hall, 
1971. 



- 7 - 



2 
frequently. We have called these four styles — the Converger, the Diverger, 

the Assimilator and the Acconanodator . 

The Converger's dominant learning abilities are abstract conceptual- 
ization (AC) and Active Experimentation (AE) . His greatest strength lies 
in the practical application of ideas. We have called this learning style 
the converger because a person with this style seems to do best in those 
situations like conventional intelligence tests where there is a single 
correct answer or solution to a question or problem ( cf Torrealba, 1972), 
His knowledge is organized in such a way that, through hypothetical-deductive 
reasoning, he can focus it on specific problems. Liam Hudson's (1966) 
research on this style of learning shows that convergers are relatively 
unemotional, prefering to deal with things rather than people. They tend 
to have narrow technical interests, and choose to specialize in the physi- 
cal sciences. Our research shows that this learning style is characteristic 
of many engineers. 

The Diverger has the opposite learning strengths of the converger. 
He is best at Concrete Experience (CE) and Reflective Observation (RO) . 
His greatest strength lies in his imaginative ability. He excells in the 
ability to view concrete situations from many perspectives. We have labelled 
this style "Diverger" because a person with this style performs better in situ- 
ations that call for generation of ideas such as a "brainstorming" idea ses- 
sion. Hudson's (1966) work on this learning style shows that divergers are 
interested in people and tend to be imaginative and emotional. They have 
broad cultural interests and tend to specialize in the arts. Our research shows 

that this style is characteristic of managers from humanities and liberal arts 

backgrounds. Personnel m anagers tend to be characterized by this learning style 
2. The reason that there are k dominant styles is that AC and CE are highly 
negatively correlated as are RO and AE. Thus individuals who score high on 
both AC and CE or on both AE and RO occur with less frequency than dc the 
other four combinations of LSI scores. 



- 8 - 

The Assimilator 's dominant learning abilities are Abstract Conceptual- 
ization (AC) and Reflective Observation (RO) . His greatest strength lies 
in his ability to create theoretical models. He excells in inductive 
reasoning; in assimilating disparate observations into an integrated ex- 
planation. He, like the converger, is less interested in people and more 
concerned for abstract concepts, but he is less concerned with the practical 
use of theories. For him it is more important that the theory be logically 
sound and precise. As a result, this learning style is more characteristic 
of the basic sciences rather than the applied sciences. In organizations 
this learning style is found most often in the research and planning depart- 
ments. 

The Accoimnodator has the opposite learning strengths of the Assimilator. 
He is best at Concrete Experience (CE) and Active Experimentation (AE) . 
His greatest strength lies in doing things; in carrying out plans and experi- 
ments and involving himself in new experiences. He tends to be more of a 
risk-taker than people with the other three learning styles. We have 
labelled this style "accoimnodator" because he tends to excel in those situ- 
ations where he must adapt himself to specific immediate circumstances. 
In situations where the theory or plan do not f?! the "facts", he will most 
likely discard the plan or theory. (His opposite style-type, the assimil- 
ator, would be more likely to disregard or re-examine the facts.) The 
accommodator is at ease with people but is sometimes seen as impatient and 
"pushy". His educational background is often in technical or practical 
fields such as business. In organizations people with this learning style 
are found in "action-oriented" jobs often in marketing or sales. 

These different learning styles can be illustrated graphically (see 



_ Q 



Figure 2) by plotting the average LSI scores for managers in our sample 
who reported their undergraduate college major (only these majors with 
more than 10 people responding are included) . Before interpreting this 
data some cautions are in order. First, it should be remembered that all 
of the individuals in the sample are managers or managers-to-be. In addi- 
tion most of these men have completed or are in graduate school. These 
two facts should produce learning styles that are somewhat more active and 
abstract than the population at large, (as indicated by total sample mean 
scores on AC-CE and AE-RO Cf +4.5 and +2,9 respectively). The interaction 
between career, high level of education and undergraduate major may produce 
distinctive learning styles. For example, physicists who are not in industry 
may be somewhat more reflective than those in this sample. Secondly, under- 
graduate majors are described only in the most gross terms. There are 
many forms of engineering or psychology. A business major at one school 
can be quite different than that at another. However, even if we take 

these cautions into consideration the distribution of undergraduate majors 

3 
on the learning style grid is strikingly consistent with theory. Under- 
graduate business majors tend to have accommodative learning styles while 
engineers on the average fall in the convergent quadrent. History, English, 
political science and psychology majors all have divergent learning styles, 
along with economics and sociology. Physics majors are very abstract fall- 
ing between the convergent and assimilative quadrents. What these data 
show is that one's undergraduate education is a major factor in the develop- 
ment of his learning style. Whether this is because individual's 
learning styles are shaped by the fields they enter or because of selection 



3. Many of these differences in LSI scores among disciplines are highly 
statistically significant especially when they are grouped into physical 
sciences, social sciences, and the arts (see Kclb , 1971 for details). 



+ 



+ 



+ 



+ 
II 



+ 




<-a 




3- 


• 


^v: 


n 


K) en 


3- 


(-■ H- 


^— V n> 


^^ n 


sj g 


en 


•~j I-"' 




-~^ w 




n- 




n 




"< 



/-N n- 

rt 

O 
0) 



VO 



W 

n 
o 
3 
o 

o 
« 



CO 

o 

. n 

> H- 

1 o 

- h-- 
O 
OQ 
><1 



CO 

M 



O 
CO 



Ul 



CO 

I 

W 

N 

(D 



O 

/— N (T) 

OSOQ 

0) 
3 

(TO 
C 
(U 

TO 



CO 
*• O 



?3 



< 

o 
w 

t/2 



w 

^-> 3 
U>00 
O M 

CO 

cr 



c 
3 

fC 

OQ 
i-( 

Q. 

C 



o 
o 



(t) 

TO 

g 

Cj. 
O 
H 



o 






CO 

o 

H- 
<D 
3 
O 

a 



o 

3 

> 
n 
rt 

< 

i-h 
M 
(B 

n 






> 

M 
I 

5=0 
O 



- 11 - 



processes that put people into and out of disciplines is an open question 
at this point. Most probably both factors are operating — people choose 
fields which are consistent with their learning styles and are further shaped 
to fit the learning norms of their field once they are in it. When there 
is a mismatch between the fields learning norm's and the individuals learn- 
ing style people will either change or leave the field. Plovnick's (1971) 
research indicated that the latter alternative is more likely the case. He 
studied a major university physics department and concluded that the major 
emphasis in physics education was on convergent learning. He predicted 
that physics students who had convergent learning styles would be content 
with their majors whereas physics majors who were divergent in their learn- 
ing style would be uncertain of physics as a career and would take more 
courses outside of the physics department than their convergent colleagues. 
His predictions were confirmed. Those students who are not "fitted" for 
the convergent learning style required in physics tend to turn away from 
physics as profession. 

These results pose something of an educational dilemma for the physics 
department. To contribute in physics today one must know many facts so 
learning content is important; and takes time, time that might be spent de- 
velopment the convergent skills of divergers. So isn't it simpler to select 
(implicitly or explicitly) people who already possess these convergent exper- 
imental and theoretical skills? Perhaps, but in the process what is lost 
is the creative tension between convergence and divergence. The result of 
this process may be a program that produces fine technicians but few inno- 
vators. Kuhn (1962) put the issue this way, "Because the old must be re- 
valued and reordered when assimilating the new, discovery and invention in 



- 12 - 

the sciences are usually intrinsically revolutionary. Therefore they do 
demand just that flexibility and open-mindedness that characterize and 
indeed define the divergent." (It just may be that one of the reasons why 
creative contributions in the sciences are made primarily by younger men 
(Lehman, 1953) is that the learning styles of older men have been shaped 
by their professional training and experience so that they adapt well to 
the inquiry norms of their profession but the creative tension is lost.) 
Learning Styles and Management Education 

Differences in learning style create similar problems for management 
education. The manager who comes to the university for mid-career education 
experiences something of a "culture shock". Fresh from a world of time 
deadlines and concrete specific problems that he must solve, he is suddenly 
immersed in a strange slow-paced world of generalities where the elegant 
solution to problems is sought even when workable solutions have been found. 
One gets rewarded here for reflection and analysis rather than concrete 
goal-directed action. The manager who "acts before he thinks, — if he ever 
thinks" meets the scientist who "thinks before he acts — if he ever acts". 
^^Our research on learning styles has shown that managers on the whole are 
distinguished by very strong active experimentation skills and are very 
weak on reflective observation skills. Business school faculty members usually 
have the reverse profile. To bridge this gap in learning styles Lho man- 
agement educator must somehow respond to pragmatic demands for relevance 
and the application of knowledge while encouraging the reflective examin- 
ation of experience that is necessary to refine old theories and to build 
new ones. In encouraging reflective observation the teacher often is seen 
as an interrupter of action - as a passive "ivory tower" thinker. Indeed 



-la- 
this is a critical role to be played in the learning process. Yet if 
the reflective observer role is not internalized by the students themselves 
the learning process can degenerate into a value conflict between teacher 
and student each maintaining that theirs is the right perspective for 
learning. 

Neither the faculty nor student perspective alone is valid in my view. 
Managerial education will not be improved by eliminating theoretical analysis 
or relevant case problems. Improvement will come through the integration 
of the scholarly and practical learning styles. My approach to achieving 
this integration has been to directly apply the experiential learning model 
in the classroom (Kolb, Rubin and Mclntyre , 1971). To do this we created 
a workbook providing games, role plays, and exercises (concrete experiences) 
that focus on 15 central concepts in organizational psychology. These 
simulations provide a common experiential starting point for managers and 
faculty to explore the relevance of psychological concepts for their work. 
In traditional management education methods the conflict between scholar 
and practitioner learning styles is exaggerated because the material to be 
taught is filtered through the learning style of the faculty member in his 
lectures or his presentation and analysis of cases. The student is "one 
down" in his own analysis because his data is second-hand and already biased. 
In the experiential learning approach this filtering process does noc take 
place because both teacher and student are observers of immediate exper- 
iences which they both interpret according to their own learning style. 
In this approach to learning the teacher's role is that of a facilitator 
of a learning process that is basically self-directed. He helps students 
to experience in a personal and immediate way the phenomena in his field 



- 14 - 



of specialization. He provides observational schemes and perspectives 
from which to observe these experiences. He stands ready with alternative 
theories and concepts as the student attempts to assimilate his observations 
into his own conception of reality. He assists in deducing the implica- 
tions of the student's concepts and in designing new "experiments" to test 
these implications through practical "real world" experience. 

There are two goals in the experiential learning process. One is a 
goal to learn the specifics of a particular subject matter. The other goal 
is learning about ones own strengths and weaknesses as a learner i.e. , 
learning how to leam from experience. When the process works well, managers 
finish their educational experience not only with new intellectual insights; 
but also with an understanding of their own learning style. This under- 
standing of learning strengths and weaknesses helps in the back home appli- 
cation of what has been learned and provides a framework for continuing 
learning on the job. Day to day experience becomes a focus for testing and 
exploring new ideas. Learning is no longer a special activity reserved for 
the classroom, it becomes an integral and explicit part of work itself. 
Learning Styles and Managerial Problem-solving 

We have been able to identify relationships between a manager's learn- 
ing style and his educational experiences but how about his current behavior 
on the job? Do managers with different learning styles approach problem 
solving and decision-making differently? Theoretically, the answer to this 
question should be "yes" since learning and problem solving are not different 
processes but the same basic process of adaptation viewed from different 
perspectives. To illustrate this point I have overlaid in Figure 3 a typical 
model of the problem solving process (after Pounds 1965) on the experiential 



- 15 



Figure 3 Comparison of the experiential Learning Model 
with a typical model of 
the problem solving process (after Pounds 1965) 



choose a 
model or goal 



/ 




compare it 
with reality 



Concrete 
Experience 



execute 
the solution 



ACCOMMODATION 
Active 



Experimentation 



select a 
solution 



CONVERGENCE 




identify 

differences 

(problems) 



DIVERGENCE 



Reflective 



ASSIMILATION 



Abstract 
Conceptualization 




select a 
problem 



evaluate 
consequences 
of solutions 



consider 
alternative 
solutions 



-16- 



leamlng model. In this figure we can see that the stages in a problem 
solving sequence generally correspond with the learning style strengths 
of the four major learning styles described earlier. The accommodator 's 
problem-solving strenths lie in executing solutions and in initiating 
problem finding based on some goal or model about how things should be. 
The diverger's problems solving strengths lie in identifying the multitude 
of possible problems and opportunities that exist in reality ("compare 
model with reality" and "identify differences") . The assimilator excells 
in the abstract model building that is necessary to choose a priority problem 
and alternative solutions. The converger's strengths lie in the evaluation 
of solution consequences and solution selection. 

To date, two studies have been conducted to discover whether there is 
anything to this theoretical model. The first study was conducted by 
Charles Stabell (Stabell, 1973) in the Trust Department of a large U.S. 
midwestern bank. One aim of his study was to discover how the learning 
styles of investment portfolio managers affected their problem solving and 
decision making in the management of the assets in their portfolios. While 
his study involved only 31 managers, he found a strong correspondence between 
the type of decisions these managers faced and their learning styles. More 
specifically he found that nearly all of the managers in the Investment 
Advisory section of the department, a high risk high pressure job (as indi- 
cated by a large percentage of holdings in common stock, a large percentage 
of discretionary accounts and a high performance and risk orientation on 
the part of clients) had accommodative learning styles (scoring very high 
on the AE and CE LSI scales). On the other hand the men in the Personal 
Trust section where risk and performance orientation were low and where 



- 17 



there were few discretionary accounts and fewer holdings in common stock 
scored highest on Reflective Observation. This finding supports our earlier 
analysis that high pressure management jobs develop and select for active 
experimentation learning skills and inhibit reflective observation learning 
skills. 

Stabell was interested in whether he could identify differences, on the 
basis of their LSI scores, in the way managers went about making investment 
decisions. He focused his research on differences between managers with 
concrete experience (CE) learning skills and abstract conceptualization (AC) 
learning skills. He asked these managers to evaluate the importance of 
the information sources that they used in making decisions and found several 
interesting differences. First CE managers cited more people as important 
sources (eg. colleagues, brokers and traders) while the AC managers listed 
more analytically oriented printed material as sources (eg. economic analyses, 
industry and company • reviews) . In addition, it seemed that CE managers 
sought services that would give them a specific recommendation that they 
could accept or reject (eg. a potential list) while the AC managers sought 
information that they could analyze themselves in order to choose an invest- 
ment. This analytic orientation of the AC managers is further illustrated 
by the fact that they tended to use more information sources in their de- 
cisions than the CE managers. These data fit well with the learning/problem 
solving model in Figure 3. The concrete managers prefer go/no go imple- 
mentation decisions based on personal recommendations while the abstract man- 
agers prefer to consider and evaluate alternative solutions themselves. 

The second study of the relationship between learning styles and manager- 
ial problem solving was a laboratory computer simulation of a production 



- 18 - 

"trouble-shooting" problem where the problem solver had to determine which 
specific type of "widget" was failure prone. This experiment which is a 
modification of a earlier problem-solving experiment by Bruner et . al. (1956) 
was conducted by Jerry Grochow as part of his doctoral dissertation (1973). 
His subjects for the experiment were 22 middle level managers at MIT's 
Sloan Fellows program. Grochow was particularly interested in the different 
types of problem solving strategies that assimilators and accommodators 
would use to solve this problem. He predicted that the accommodators would 
use a strategy that called for little complexity in use and interpretation, 
little inference from the data, and little cognitive strain in assimilating 
information; while assimilators would prefer a strategy that had the opposite 
characteristics, i.e., more complex use and interpretation and more assimilation 
strain and required inference. The former strategy, called successive scan- 
ning was simply a process whereby the problem solver scans the data base of 
widgets for a direct test of his current hypothesis. It requires little 
conceptual analysis since the current hypothesis is either validated or not 
in each trial. The latter strategy called simultaneous scanning is in a 
sense an "optimal" strategy in that each data point is used to eliminate the 
maximum number of data points still possible. This strategy requires con- 
siderable conceptual analysis since the problem solver must keep several 
hypotheses in his head at the same time and deduce the optimal widegt to 
examine in order to test these hypotheses. The results of his experiment 
confirmed his hypothesis that accommodators would use successive scanning 
while assimilators would use the more analytical simultaneous scanning stra- 
tegy. He further found that managers with accommodative learning styles 
tended to show more inconsistency in their use of strategies while the 



- 19 - 



assimilative managers were quite consistent in their use of the simultaneous 
scanning strategy. The accommodative managers seemed to be taking a more 
intuitive approach, switching strategies as they gathered more data during 
the experiment. Interestingly enough Grochow found no differences between 
accommodative and assimilative managers in the amount of time it took them 
to solve the problem. Though the two groups used very different styles in 
this problem they performed equally well. 

The results of both of these studies are consistent with the learning/ 
problem solving model. Managers learning styles are measureably related to 
the way in which they solve problems and make decisions on the job and in 
the laboratory. Let us now turn to how these different managerial learning/ 
problem solving styles affect organizational functioning. 
The Organization as a Learning System 

Like individuals, organizations learn and develop distinctive learning 
styles. They, like individuals, do so through their transactions with the 
environment and through their choice of how to relate to that environment. 
This has come to be known as the open systems view of organizations. Since 
many organizations are large and complex, the environment they relate to 
becomes highly differentiated and diverse. The way the organization adapts 
to this external environment is to differentiate itself into units each of 
which deals with just one part of the firm's external conditions. Marketing 
and sales face problems associated with the market, customers, and competi- 
tors. Research deals with the academic and technological worlds. Production 
deals with production equipment and raw materials sources. Personnel and 
labor relations deal with the labor market. And so on. 



- 20 - 



Because of this need to relate to different aspects of the environment 
the different units of the firm develop characteristic ways of thinking 
and workitig together; different styles of decision-making and problem solv- 
ing. These units select and shape managers to solve problems and make de- 
cisions in the way their enviomment demands. In fact, Lawrence and Lorsch 
define organizational differentiation as " the difference in cognitive and emo - 
tional orientation among managers in different functional departments " (1967, 
p. 11). 

If the organization is thought of as a learning system then each of the 
differentiated units that is charged with adapting to the challenges of one 
segment of the enviornment can be thought of as having a characteristic 
learning style that is best suited to meet those environmental demands. 
The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) should be a useful tool for measuring 
this organizational differentiation among the functional units of a firm. 

To test this we studied about 20 managers from each of five functional groups 

4 
in a midwestern division of a large American industrial corporation. The 

five functional groups are described below followed by my hypothesis about 

the learning style that should characterize each group given the environments 

to which they relate. 

1. Marketing (n=20) . This group is made up primarily of former salesmen. 
They have a non-quantitative "intuitive" approach to their work. 
Because of their practical sales orientation in meeting customer demaiilj 
they should have accommodative learning styles, i.e., concrete and active. 

2. Research (n=22) . The work of this group is split about 50/50 between 



4. This data was collected by Frank Weisner as part of his Sloan MS thesis 
(Weisner, 1971). I have reanalysed his data for presentation here. 



_ 21 _ 



pioneer research and applied research projects. The emphasis is on 
basic research. Researchers should be the most assimilative group, 
i.e., abstract and reflective, a style fitted to the world of knowledge 
and ideas. 

3. Personnel/Labor Relations (n=20) . In this company men from this depart- 
ment serve two primary functions, interpreting personnel policy and 
promoting interaction among groups to reduce conflict and disagreement. 
Because of their "people orientation" these men should be predominantly 
divergers , concrete and reflective. 

4. Engineering (n=18). This group is made up primarily of design engineers 
who are quite production oriented. They should be the most convergent 
subgroup, i.e., abstract and active, although they should be less abstract 
than the research group. They represent a bridge between thought and 
action. 

5. Finance (n=20) . This group has a strong computer, information systems 
bias. Finance men given their orientation toward the mathematical task 
of information system design should be highly abstract. Their crucial 
role in organizational survival should produce an active orientation. 
Thus finance group members should have convergent learning styles. 
Figure 4 shows the average scores on the active/reflective (AE-RO) 

and abstract/concrete (AC-CE) learning dimensions for the five functional 
groups. These results are consistent with the above predictions with the 
exception of the finance group whose scores are less active than predicted 
and thus they fall between the assimilative and the convergent quadrant. 
The LSI clearly differentiates the learning styles that characterize the 



o\ 




N3 cn 

to (D 

l-t 
n 

3- 



•^ 





m 




c 




H 




(b 




*> 


Tl 


03 > 


e 


3 < 


3 


G4 (B 


n 


1-1 


rt 


> 03 


H- 


croQ 


o 


cn m 


3 


rt 




l-( t-' 




03 oo 




n M 




rr 




-^ tn 




<^ fi 




o a 




3 R 




n fD 




f-( M 




0) 




rt O 




(C 3 




^ > 




> n 




O rt 




1 H- 




O < 




M (D 




*^^ 




?3 




a' (D 




^ rti 




M 




O (t) 




i-i n 




00 rt 




03 H- 




3 < 




H- fD 




N 




03 /-v 




rt > 




H- M 




O 1 




3 %l 



-23- 



functional units of at least this one company. Managers in each of these 
units apparently use very different styles in doing their jobs. 

^^But differentiation is only part of the story of organizational adapt- 
ation and effectiveness. The result of the differentiation necessary to 
adapt to the external environment is the creation of a corresponding internal 
need to integrate and coordinate the different units. This necessitates 
resolving in some way the conflicts inherent in these different learning 
styles. In actual practice this conflict gets resolved in many ways. Some- 
times it is resolved through confrontation and integration of the different 
learning styles. More often, however, it is resolved through dominance by 
one unit over the other units resulting in an unbalanced organizational 
learning style. We all know of organizations that are controlled by the 
marketing department or are heavily engineering oriented, etc. This im- 
balance can be effective if it matches environmental demands in a stable 
environment; but it can be costly if the organizaiton is called upon to learn 
to respond to changing environmental demands and opportunities. 

One important question concerns the extent to which the integrative 
conflict between units is a function of managers learning styles rather than 
merely a matter of conflicting job and role demands. To get at this question 
we asked the managers in each of the five functional units in the above 
study to rate how difficult they found it to communicate with each of the 
other four units. If integrative communication is a function of learning 
style there should be a correspondence between how similar two units are in 
their learning style and how easy they find it to communicate together. 



5. "t" tests for significance of difference between groups on the abstract/ 
concrete dimension yield the following 1-tail probabilities that are less 
than .10, Marketing is more concrete than personnel (p<.10), engineering 
(p <.05), research (p < .005) and finance (p<r.005). Finance and research are 
more abstract than personnel (on both comparisons pc.005). On the active/ 
reflective dimension research is more reflective than marketing (pK.05) , 
engineering (p-^.05), and to a lesser extent finance (p.f.10). 



-24 - 

When the average communication difficulty ratings among the five units 
are compared with differences in unit learning styles we find that in most 
cases this hypothesis is confirmed, i.e., those units who are most different 
in learning style have most difficulty communicating with one another (see 
Weisner, 1971, p. 56-59). To test this notion more rigorously we did a 
more intensive study of communication between the two units who were most 
different in learning styles, marketing and research. To ascertain whether 
it was the manager's learning style itself that accounted for communication 
difficulty we divided managers in the marketing unit into two groups. One 
group had learning styles that were similar to those managers in research 
(i.e., assimilators) while the other group had accommodative learning styles 
typical of the marketing function. The research group was divided similarly. 
The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 5. When managers have 
learning styles similar to another group they have little trouble communi- 
cating with that group. When style differences are great communication 
difficulty rises. These results suggest that managers learning styles are 
an important factor to consider in achieving integration among functional 
units. 
Managing the Learning Process 

To conclude let us return to the problem we began with — how managers 
and organizations can explicitly manage their learning process. We have 
seen that the experiential learning model is useful not only for examining 
the educational process but also for understanding managerial problem solving 
and organizational adaptation. But how can an awareness of the experiential 
learning model and our own individual learning style help improve individual 
and organizational learning? Two recommendations seem important. 



- 25 - 



Figure 5 Communication difficulty between 
Marketing and Research as a function of Learning Style 



DIFFICULT 



Rating of 

Communication 

Difficulty 



EASY 2 



Communication Difficulty 
with Research by: 



6.0 



3.83 



Communication Difficulty 
with Marketing by: 



5.93 



4.28 



Marketing Mgrs. 
with Learning 
Styles similar 
to research 
(Assimilators) 
n=12 



Marketing Mgrs . 
with "Marketing" 
Learning Styles 
(Accommodators ) 
n=7 



significance of difference 

Mann Whitney U Test 1 tail = p4.04 



Researchers 

with Learning 
styles similar 
to Marketing 
(Accommodators) 
n=7 



Researchers 
with "Research" 
Learning Styles" 
(Assimilators) 
n=15 



significance of differences = p-<.09 



_ 26- 



First, learning should be an explicit objective that is pursued as 
consciously and deliberatly as profit or productivity. Managers and organ- 
izations should budget time to specifically learn from their experiences. 
When important meetings are held or important decisions taken time should 
be set aside to critique and learn from these events. In my experience all 
too few organizations have a climate which allows for free exploration of 
questions like "What have we learned from this venture?" Usually active ex- 
perimentation norms dictate "We don't have time, lets move on." 

Which leads to the second recommendation. The nature of the learning 
process is such that opposing perspectives, action and reflection, concrete 
involvement and analytical detachment, are all essential for optimal learn- 
ing. When one perspective comes to dominate others, in the long run learning 
effectiveness is reduced. From this we can conclude that the most effective 
learning systems are those that can tolorate differences in perspective. 
This point can be illustrated by the case of an electronics firm that I 
have worked with over the years. The firm was started by a group of engineers 
with a unique product. For several years they had no competitors and when 
some competition entered the market they continued to dominate and do well 
because of their superior engineering quality. Today is a different story. 
They are now faced with stiff competition in their original product area. 
In addition their very success has caused new problems. They are no longer 
a small intimate company but a large organization with several plants in 
the U.S. and Europe. The company has had great difficulty in responding 
to these changes because it still responds to problems primarily from an 
engineering point of view. Most of the top executives in the company are 



-11 - 

former engineers with no formal management training. Many of the specialists 
in marketing, finance and personnel who have been brought in to help the 
organization solve its new problems feel like "second class citizens". Their 
ideas just don't seem to carry much weight. What was once the organization's 
strength, its engineering expertise, has become to some extent its weak- 
ness. Because engineering has flourished at the expense of the development 
of other organizational functions like marketing and the management of human 
resources the firm is today struggling with rather than mastering its en- 
vironment. 



- 28 - 



References 



1. 
2, 



Bruner, Jerome S., F...avs for the Left Han d. New York: Atheneu., 1966, 
Bruner. Jerome S.. th. Process of Education, New York: Vintage Books, 



1960. 



Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J.J. and Austin G.A. A^tn6j_ofjn,ir,^i^ 
New York: Wiley and Sons, 1956. 

Flavell. John, The Developmental Psychol opv o f Jean Piaget, New York: 
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1963. 



1941, 53, No. 239. 

6. Grochov. Jerrold Cognitive Style as a f"'"^"^^^^ ^^.^^ f.^f/"" 

active decision-support systems, Pn.D. Thesis, n.i.i. 



School, 1973. 



7 Harvey, O.J. , David Hunt and Harold Schroder, Conceptual System s^nd 
^' ^;»..o.:intv Organization, New York: John Wiley, 1961. 

8 Hudson. Liam, ContrasLiiBiSiliaHi°- ' Mi^^dlesex. England: Penguin Books 

Ltd., 1966. 

9 Kagan, Jerome, Bernice L. Rosman, Deborah Day, Joseph Alpert, and 

William Phillips Information processing m the child. 
Significance of Analytic and Reflective Attitudes. 

Kolb, David A. individual Learning Styles and the Learning Process, 
M.I.T. Sloan School Working Paper no. 535-71, iy/i. 

Kolb, David, irwin Rubin and James ^clntyre Oganizatio^^ 
An Experiential Approach , Englewood Cliffs, N.J.. 
Inc., 1971. 

Kris, Ernst, P.vchoanalvtic Explorations ,^:;,^. New York: International 
Universities Press, 1952. 

Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scienti fic Revolutions, Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press, 1962. 

T, 1 ^r.A lav Torqch nT-p^n^yat-Ton and Environment Boston: 
lA. I-awrence,^Paul »\^7^^^°-_t;32l|j^^5^jjri;0;:jIKiirAd^lnlstratlon. 

1967. 
15. Lehman, H.C. , A.e and Achievement , Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University 
Press, 1953. 



10. 
11. 

12. 
13. 



- 29 - 



16. Plovnick, Mark S. , A cognitive ability theory of occupational roles, 

M.I.T. School of Management, Working Paper (I'SZA-?!, Spring 1971. 

17. Pounds, William, On Problem Finding, Sloan School Working Paper 

#145-65, 1965. 

18. Psychological Monographs , 78, No. 1, 1964. 

19. Singer, Jerome, The importance of daydreaming. Psycholo g y Today , 1968, 

1^, No. 11, pp. 18-26. 

20. Stabell, Charles The Impact of a Conversational Computer System on 

Human Problem Solving Behavior, unpublished working paper, M.I.T. 
Sloan School, 1973. 

21. Torrealba, David, Convergent and Divergent Learning Styles, MS thesis 

M.I.T. Sloan School, 1972. 

22. Weisner, Frank, "Learning Profiles and Managerial Styles of Managers", 

S.M. thesis, Sloan School of Management, M.I.T., 1971. 



Date Due 



-''?-1o 



EiASEMENT 



M/iy 1 6 799^ 

OCT. 2 1 1992 






(iC^ 



a 



i^^^ 



FEB 2 6 



2002 



Lib-26-67 



MIT LIBRARIES 



3 TDflD 0D3 7Tb ^^^ 



^ 



i^- I ^ 



3 TDflD 003 7Tb 510 



~JA--^3 



MIT LIBRARIES JWPl 



3 TOflO 003 fi27 MT7 



CVC 



3 TOflO 00 



MIT LIBRARIES 



11 lllljl I lj||| III Ijl |||l||llll III Hill 



3 fl27 513 



6r7-71 



Mir , IBftflRIES ^)OPL 



3 TOfiD 



III III III 
3 7T 



551 



CST-n 



MIT LIBRARIES 



3 TOfiO 



03 7Tb 5afl 



SH-13 



T-J5 143 w no.B52- 73 

Kolb, Oavid Al/On management and the I 

637252 D»BKS nOO.27754, 



III |l llll I II l|ll III! Il 



TDflO 000 7M7 b7? 



tr^